You know, Mary Kay, washing my hands of the Worldcon because of the politics is easy, because, in the end, the Worldcon is incredibly unimportant.
Washing my hands of New York City, or my Country, is different. I was lectured, here, by this blog's editor, that my action do count -- even for those who can't even vote, because they are not citizens of the US.
Comparing the two isn't even on the "bad joke" level. The number of people who will die if Irv Koch takes over the Worldcon is 0. The number of people who have died because of the GOP is much higher.
But, in fact, I am washing my hands of it. I won't be in New York now. I was hoping to make my voice heard -- and to keep the idiots, who will be there, and the bad guys, ditto, from ruining everything.
But after hearing a series of New Yorkers tell me why they won't be there -- why it's more important for them to be elsewhere, well.
I would have stood with you, and maybe done some good. But I won't stand for you.
We'll, now that Bill has granted absolution, and Marilee has implicitly declared the Worldcon of primary importance, I guess this really doesn't matter. But.
Feeling one has to get into a nasty physical situation because otherwise "they've chased you out of your own home" and you'd be "letting them win"
The world is often not a zero sum game -- but, many times, it is.
There will be only one winner. The GOP, or not the GOP. I thought you knew that. Hell, you've lectured me, and Nader supporters, and countless others on this very point. That it was us, or them. It is us, or them. This is why military heros are dragged through the mud-because they aren't them.
But now, suddenly, "letting them win" is George Bush talk?
That's exactly what George Bush wants to hear.
I hope you have enjoyable trip, and pray you have a safe return to your home, and I hope that, someday, you'll see New York as something else other than the scene of George II's truimph over the dead bodies of your citymates.
As ever, it’s the difference between wanting to actually accomplish change, and merely looking for opportunities to enact your belief.
You're stating that every protest in New York will be violent.
Is this true? Is there nothing you can do, you can say, you can state -- even a steely glare -- that isn't automatically putting Teresa in combat with New York's Finest?
And, I must ask you, was 2001 and 2003 politically useful? And why isn't 2004?
In you own home, for god's sake, Patrick! They've chased you out of your own home.
How can this be good?
Your integrity is unquestioned by me, Patrick. Your methods, your logic, maybe, but the one underlying truth is you've always tried to do the best you could, and do the most right you could. You are, in many ways, the living embodiment of "Do Good, Avoid Evil, Throw a Room Party."
I'm just -- I don't know, I can't even find a word for it -- that you'd let them win like this.
Whatever you do, don't give how the media or the GOP will report it a single thought. No matter who you are or what you do, it will be reported in the most negative light possible. Period.
You can't win that game. Don't even try. The fix is in.
I remember a couple from Brooklyn who went to Washington to protest. I know a couple from Brooklyn who are leaving NYC to avoid protest.
I wonder if they are, honestly, the same couple?
You're not kidding about living right under the pattern. The IAP (Initial Approach Fix) for landing on Runway 4 using ILS is called "GRENE". One guess what it's named after. The actual point is at 40D37"31.31N, 74D00'00.980W, or, in real world terms, at 13th Ave and 62nd St.
In good weather, there's a visual approach (EXPRESSWAY VISUAL RWY 31) that follows the same path (the route states "overfly Prospect Park to the extent practical), until you hit the Long Island Expressway. You then turn right, follow the LIE to Flushing Meadows Park, then turn left and land on Runway 31L.
...the same technique that may help keep away pedophiles is even more useful for bullying other kids or spreading nasty rumors about others at school.
I think Margaret Cho's example is spot on. After posting an anti-Shrub rant in her block, she was inudated with hate-email.
Her response was to post choice examples. Complete choice examples -- including headers and signatures. Most entertaing was the response -- she was then flooded with those same people pleading with her to pull those posts down.
They were fine with hate, until they were exposed. Then, suddenly, they're running. I know one person, who was stupid enough to post from a work account (the message was complete with the mail-server-auto-attached corporate disclaimer) who lost thier job over that.
So, now, he wonders, is "Americas Revolution" is correct?
Because if a public, accountable constitutional challenge is "*exactly*" the same as a furtive legal maneuver conducted in deepest secrecy, we're leaving our executives precious little incentive to behave themselves at all.
It is, in this very compelling sense.
What if Mayor Newsome had won? What if Bush gets away with Abu Gharib?
Then, suddenly, this is precendent. Suddenly, the courts have signed off on the executive void of law by fiat. You can argue "Bush evil, Newsome Good", and I won't quibble. You can note that Bush tried to submarine this, and Newsome was very public about it, and I won't argue either. The exact arguments they used differ in detail, but, fundamentally, both took the exact same position -- that they saw the law, as written, as not binding them, thus, they could take action that was *explicitly* forbidden them. The laws against the US use of torture and the marriage of same-sex partners in California are very clear.
Both Newsome and Bush were making, fundamentally, the exact same core argument -- that the law, written by the legislative, did not apply to them for judicial reasons, therefore, they were not obliged to follow it. Both were taking the mantle of the judiciary up to justify actions that were, by the relevant law, illegal. It is, fundamentally, the *exact* same action. Never mind that one was for a laudable goal, and one was for an act of evil -- or the difference in detail.
This is why the CA Supreme Court was exactly right in this -- Mayor Newsome's actions, while laudable, were exactly wrong.
I hope there comes a day, soon, where Mayor Newsome can legally order those licenses issued. But I'm not willing to give even mayors I like the power that he attempted to assert.
Christ, the thought of Daley with that power scares me to the core.
there's also rather a lot of difference between issuing marriage licenses on the one hand, and Abu Ghraib on the other.
Yes. It's clearly different parts of the slope. But game out what happens if the CASC sets the precedent that the executive could just wave away laws they disliked.
The action the mayor took was wrong -- and was countered. I hope that we can marry these couples, but I'm not willing to sacrifice one of the most critical checks in our system to let a few thousand couples get married. Indeed, if the choice is "ban marriage altogether" or "allow mayors and such the power to ignore law at a whim", I'm all for single people.
This is how facism starts. You don't take some extra- or counter-legal action against something unpopular. You don't suddenly revoke the rights of the vast majority of the system. You start by doing something that your base agrees with. Then you push things a bit. Then, suddenly, people are wearing red letters, pink triangles, and yellow stars.
The fact that those marriages, made in love and idealism, but with a frankly illegal basis, were voided sucks, until you consider the consequences of not voiding them.
There are times where breaking the law to do right is correct -- and the person doing so still must answer to that law. This, however, was going another step -- it made *breaking the law* right, with the person doing so not answerable for his actions.
The reason I used Abu Ghraib is simple -- it is the exact same side of the coin. A law is in place, and an executive is claiming that the law is not in effect for some reason. The *exact* rational that Mayor Newsome used to marry those couples is the *exact* rational that Bush is claiming to torture Iraqis -- the executive can judge what laws apply and what laws do not.
Are these marriages worth that?
This was a stupid law and I think my teacher made the right decision in not enforcing it.
So? Did your teacher take an oath-of-office? Do the teachers in your school system act as public safety officers, with the power of the executive behind them?
No.
There is a huge difference between a *citizen* refusing to follow a law they feel is unjust, and a member of the executive doing so. The first is civil disobediance. The second is a direct attack upon the foundations of our political system.
Several hundred people got married, didn't they?
No. In the eyes of the law, those marriages did not happen. In the wording of the opinion "They are void and of no legal effect."
Unless the CASC is overturned by SCOTUS, those people were (alas) never married. I seriously doubt the Supreme Court will touch this.
If another case should overturn the prohibition against such marriages, those married won't magically reappear. They'll need to do it again.
This sucks, but this is the way it has to be. The way to correct this wrong is not to give the executive the power to ignore whatever law they feel isn't right. The mayor of SF may have been trying to do good, but the side effect was deadly. That could not stand and this country remain in any way a free country.
Note how many of the amendments to the Constitution have variations of this phrase.
"Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" What happens to these amendments if an executive can ignore that legislation by fiat?
That's one of the arguments against Bush, right? Do you want him to have legal precendent to ignore what ever law *he* feels is "unconstituional?"
If so, congratulations. You've just made both Guantanamo Bay *and* Abu Gahrib perfectly legal.
So how does that make it any less of a law?
Indeed, you could say it is more of a law, given that it was passed by the direct view of the people, not by thier representatives.
Yes, the ballot initiative system is very much a problem. Ditto the recall. But, you know what -- they still passed. Where were those who would vote against it?
The crux of the matter -- the moment the law can be suspended by the voice of one person is the moment you live in a dictatorship. If a mayor you like can do this, then a mayor you don't like can as well -- as can a president.
Both you, and Cory, and Mr. Myers are wrong. Right in hating the fact that they annuled the marriages, but the ruling was the exact correct one to make. The opposite -- to support SF's Mayor, would have been catastrophic.
There is a simple balance of authority. The legislative makes the law. The executive enforces it. The judicial judges it. Period.
What the Mayor of SF did was take it upon himself, a member of the executive, to judge the law. That was wrong, and that, and *only* that, is why the Supreme Court of California ruled that the marriages were null and void.
Indeed, they were *very* careful to shoot this down on this technical grounds -- that the Mayor took actions that he knew to be, prima facia illegal, based on the fact that he felt they were unconstitutional. He acted not as an executive, which he is, but as a judge, which he is not. They most certainly did not rule that the law against gay marriages was constitutional -- and there is a case working up in the courts that will challenge that fact. They may well have ruled the law unconstituional if they could have - but the case didn't challenge that.
The CASC was exactly right in this ruling. Just because you agree with a wrong doesn't make it right -- doubly so if it sets a precedent. Do you want Bloomberg ruling on what laws are constitutional, and enforcing them accordingly? What about Ashcroft?
The fact of the ruling sucks. But the reason of the ruling is compelling. To rule otherwise means that the CASC would have just granted the Mayors of California the right to choose what laws would apply, and what wouldn't.
I can't think of a worse nightmare than to let the executive of this country override the law by fiat.
I suspect we disagree less than you think. I do appreciate the support.
MCFI will, of course, not be punished for this, other than losing about $100 of at-door income when I sell my membership, and maybe not even that, if the person I sell it wouldn't have done so otherwise.
So, as in all things, it matters not. It's not the first time on this weblog that I've been told that what the Constitution says matters -- it's what Fandom Thinks, and, apparently, Fandom Thinks This Is Okay -- or, at least, SMOFdom does.
I'm tired of conrunning, truth to tell. No matter what you do, somebody hates you for it. I busted ass for Chicon, and I have that fact rubbed into my face almost every time it comes up. I've worked hard on Capricon, now, we've two factions fighting, and, somehow, I ended up on both sides.
And, now, of course, when I point out a flat-out violation of a rule that there's a *very* good chance a member of MCFI drafted, I'm immediatly quizzed on bias.
Never mind helping to start Midfan -- modled, in part, after MCFI, to try and Do Good, Avoid Evil, and Throw A Room Party. So, of course, MCFI pulls this and other stunts. Fat lot of good that example set, isn't it?
So, I'm, as of now, out of the Worldcon *and* conrunning business. Done. Finished. Not My Fault, Not My Problem, Not My Con.
I'm tired of many things. But what I'm really fucking tired of is being always "wrong."
Esp. when, a couple of months later, I start hearing my position as being right. But what does that matter? Chicon, after all, sucked.
Sorry, Kevin, it doesn't fly on the face. The title of the page is "How Noreascon Four Is Not Like the Democratic National Convention." In it, they state, quite clearly, that the platform of the DNC is filled with lies (see #2) and that they can't handle money.
To me, calling the DNC liars and stating that can't handle money, without also explicitly doing the same to every other parties' covention, is clearly attempting to influence an election.
Doing so in my name is wrong.
I didn't miss the point, I ignored it. Your posit is that the Democrats must move to the center to win elections. So far, you've offered no proof that this is true.
I've stated that the Dem's move to the right has opened a hole on the left. You note that 5% is enough for a spoiler candidate.
On the face of it, you are agreeing with my point.
Now, once again. How does the continuing move to the right of the Democratic party help the party, when, so far, that only visible result of that move is the loss of Congress and the Presidency (by opening up a hole the Greens could, and did, exploit to shoot down Gore.)
The empirical evidence is clear -- the further the Dems move to the right, the more control the GOP gets.
Funny. I keep hearing GOP pundits saying the Democrats need to move to the right. One wonders why.
Once again. How has the Democracts generally concilatory tone and move to the right helped the Democratic Party. Never mind the liberals they're walking away from.
You offer, well, Four More Years.
The Democratic Party will pay even less attention if all you do is vote for a non-Democratic candidate every four years. Change takes more than that.
Then the Democratic party will have lost my vote, just like they've lost a number of other voters. Then, they'll start losing seats. Eventually, they will have to do one of two things.
1) Attract new voters.
2) Die.
The DNC has bet, over the last decade, that they'd gain more on the right than they've lost on the left. So far, it seems that this has resulted in, well, lost seats.
When was this? In the 1996 I remember, Bill Clinton was a popular president running for reelection.
There were plenty of liberals saying that. They realized that they had been sold a bill of goods. Clinton was not only not liberal, he was, other than the attempt at Health Care, quite conservative. Thus, the start of "They're all the same" and "Clinton was the best Republican president ever -- that's why the GOP hates him."
Another hint: Why did Clinton win? Why are the GOP so eager to get Nader on the ballots?
Are you under the impression that there is a vast "silent majority" of lefties out there, who don't vote now but who would turn out in droves for a real leftist candidate (even though they apparently don't turn out for Nader)
Funny. In the world I live in, about 5% of them did last time -- which is one of the reasons we've gone here. Well, Nader was hardly a leftist candidate, to be honest. But he was more left than the early version of Gore.
Screw hints. The reason Clinton won wasn't a move to the right. It was a combination of two, only two, and exactly two things.
1) Clinton may be the best campaigner ever. Period.
2) Ross Perot.
Here's what the rightward shift of the Democrats has given you.
1) A GOP controlled congress.
2) A hole that allowed the Green to slide in, and snipe enough votes to let the GOP finish the job by stealing Florida.
3) A GOP controlled judicary.
Your argument is winning national elections is more important. Fine. Prove that the DLC lead shift has resulted in such.
Because, you know, the "moderate" shift of the Democrats has not only left the liberals out in the cold, it has left the Democrats out in the cold.
Just please, come up with some new lameass rhetoric, OK?
No. "lameass rhetoric" would have been to use Hitler.
The fact is simple. If you state, out loud, that you will vote for the Democratic Candidate, because you will not vote for Bush, there is *no reason whatsoever* for the Democratic Party to listen to you when selecting a candidate. They've already got your vote, no matter what. It is stupid of them to take your concerns into account if that might cost them a vote that hasn't already promised to vote for them.
That's what Anybody but Foo means. It means that you don't care what is chosen for you, as long as it is not Foo.
Now, iterate. What happens?
First, it was Anybody but Nixon. Then, Anybody but Reagan. Then, Anybody but Bush. Then, Anybody but Dole. Now, Anybody but Bush again.
Been there. Done that. And the Dems have ignored liberals, because, well, they were Anybody. And they still are.
You tell me that this is a bad time to make a stand against Anybody. Question: When was a good time?
And, you know, if it was before Reagan, I wonder: Where the hell were you? I couldn't vote then. I didn't have a say. If you did, well, why the hell did you take Anybody then? What was so important that you had to take Anybody, year after year, election after election?
And you want me to vote for Anybody now? How much more to the right should Anybody shift before Anybody is not, in fact, better.
Hint: Why was Nader even in play in 2000?
Hint: Why does the GOP *always* pick a fanatical social policy fight in March before an election?
Hint: Why has Democratic GOTV efforts had real problems the last three elections?
Anybody? Anybody?
And you want me to be quiet, since my "rhetoric" is "lameass." I apologize for not being a good sheep, and baaing every four years. But, to be both honest and crude, fuck Anybody.
The GOP is right in one thing. You can safely bet, over time, on the Democrats taking the "safe" road.
Final Hint: What do you call a military commander who always knows what road his enemy will take?
Given that, for my *entire voting life*, I've been forced to vote for a conservative politician to avoid casting a vote for an even more conservative, or even radical, politician, there's a simple reason why the Democratic Party doesn't want the word "liberal" associated with them.
They're not the liberal party.
In the US, there is no effective liberal party. This is why the Greens were able to snipe the presidency away from the Dems -- and why it will happen again.
Look at what's been done today. Margaret Cho is too "off color" to take part in DLC, I mean, DNC convention related activities. Gore and Dean have been told, quite simply, to knock off all that anti-war/anti-Bush stuff, and be good little positive people, because the party has to reach l/e/f/t/ right to reach the "moderates" in the "middle" and the "undecideds."
And this will just go on and on. The DNC will nominiate increasingly conservative politicians. The GOP will nominate radical ones. The liberals will vote conservative, because, well, "it's too important. Think of the Court/Debt/War/Health Care/lalalala."
And, you know, the DLC/DNC knows this. They know they own your vote, because you can't vote for Bush. So, they have exactly >< that much regard for your position.
TK: Simple. You tell them that this is not acceptible. That you will not vote Anybody but GOP. As long as you accept that proposition, there is no reason for the DNC to change.
Anybody but Bush means you gladly vote for Reagan.
PNH is correct.
Furthermore, in case nobody can figure out why I'm angry about this. I am (currently) a member of N4. The website is an offical publication of N4. Therefore, this was said in my name, as well as in the names of the other ~4000 members of N4.
That's flat out unacceptable.
And it's just so that they've edited out some of the worse of thier sins without apology.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2004 | 45 |
| 2003 | 100 |
| 2002 | 40 |
Total: 185 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Erik V. Olson:
Show all comments by Erik V. Olson.